Lord Justice Elias said only events like terrorism, strikes, air traffic control problems and freak weather were beyond the control of airline.

Company director Mr Huzar, 58, of Stockport battled for two years for compensation after his flight from Manchester to Malaga was delayed by more than a day in October 2011 because of a wiring defect.

Thrilled with his landmark victory he said: “I’m ecstatic, just really happy and relieved.”

Paul Hinchliffe, managing partner of his legal team at Bott & Co, Wilmslow said: “This is a binding decision and a huge victory for passengers who have been wrongly denied compensation by airlines, amounting to billions of pounds for millions of consumers.

"The court has made it clear that a technical problem is not an extraordinary circumstance.”

James Walker, founder of consumer website Resolver.co.uk, urged airlines to start playing fair with customers - or face a tide of PPI-style claims.

He said: “Today’s judgment is a landmark case, but airlines need to beware the reasons for rejecting or delaying claims are being eroded.

“The choice is now simple stop rejecting all the claims or let a PPI-style industry develop and cost more time and money and lose the trust of your passengers.”

Lawyers said passengers who had suffered delays up to six years ago but had not received a payout, were entitled to claim up to £484 in compensation from airlines.

Kevin Clarke, aviation lawyer at Bott & Co said: “Airlines should compensate people but they have been using the extraordinary circumstances argument to get out of paying.

“Now the law is quite clear and passengers who are delayed for at least three hours are entitled to claim even if there is a technical hitch.”

Today Jet2 said it was “disappointed” with the judgement and would be taking the case to the Supreme Court.

In a statement it said: “Today’s judgement is disappointing and could, if unchallenged, have a significant impact on the entire airline industry.

“The Judge noted that the issue ‘is not without some difficulty’, and as such we are taking the dispute to the Supreme Court.”